"Conceal Carry License" Topic

Isn't the 2nd Amendment the Right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia? or do I have that wrong?

You have that wrong.

Hmm Interesting.

US 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

seems pretty clear to me. The people's right to bear arms is part of being a well regulated militia. So I assume all those with guns have militia service numbers, standard operating procedures and a chain of command appropriate to a well regulated militia?

Actually, as a well regulated (properly trained) militia is necessary to the security of a Free State, the pool of potential militia members is the People who are keeping and bearing arms.

The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly not limited to the members of the militia but guaranteed to 'the People.'

And as the document in question is significantly older than 200 years and concerns a military matter – militias are military – entirely appropriate for discussion.

We have statements and letters from the founding fathers like Patrick Henry who discuss the various points they bring to the table when talking about the 2nd amendment.

Note that the role of the Federal State and a standing army had not been figured out at the point and many people still talked from a States in a loose alliance point of view.

In this regard they discussed state and local militia of citizen soldiers to have access to arms for the following reasons :

1) Obviously the fear of the British coming back for another round.

2) Some states (or counties and towns) feared that larger states might try to absorb them or preform some kind of takeover. They wanted to have armed men proved a deterrent for such a case.

3) They needed guns to hold off problems such as pirates, natives, rogue elements, etc. Remember this is before police and military.

4) In the South that "particular institution" lead to a state of paranoia among the population that slaves would and will revolt if given half a chance. In the case of Southern politicians they implied that those militias were meant to deter slaves from attacking their masters. Indeed there was great fear that early abolitionists might use the Federal state to remove the right to bear arms and therefore make slavery untenable without deadly force backing it up.

5) There was fear that Washington or other generals who commanded men in the field might turn out to be a "Ceasar" and try to set themselves up as an autocratic leader.

This is why many were so keen to have a clause in the Constitution to back up the ownership of firearms as they saw it as an important legal point to avoid future attempts to void it for some politically convenient reason.

Overall the view tended to be towards the 2nd amendment as being a communal rather than an individual right. Such things were cleared up over the years, but even until the latter end of the 20th century in legal circles it was generally regarded as a general right rather than a purely individual right.

This has changed as pro-gun organisations have pulled every trick to in their arsenal to make sure it can only be interpreted as an unalienable individual right.

Indeed for most of its history firearm regulation was seen as a moot point since the majority were used either for hunting or as professional tools with self defense and recreational purposes last. It isn't until the introduction of automatic weapons that we see attempts to regulate them.

While settlers may have had access to muskets that were serviceable as military weapons that gap grew wider over the years. Firearms were relatively expensive compared to the average wage, which means that until not that long ago cheap single shot rifles and shotguns were quite common and bolt action or more expensive types were less common until wages increased in the latter half of the 20th century.

These days high-capacity, military grade weapons are commonly available for low prices and are more affordable than ever before. All forms of gun problems have gone up, injuries caused by improper handling, accidental shootings, relative on relative attacks, crime etc are all up due to guns being more commonly available.

I'm not going to pronounce myself of the pros and cons of gun control, but we all know people we wouldn't ever trust with most types of power tools or heavy machinery, but their right to own guns should be unfettered ? Like in so many human activities the answer is not an easy one.

Damn … got the threads mixed up.

@Editor: Could you delete this post please? Thanks.

Hummm, I think the arms that the people had in the beginning were equal to the arms that the army had at the time. I'm just saying! Of course it doesn't state cannons were a right that individuals could have just like artillery today isn't a right to the citizens to have. Just the personal arms were equal to the arms that an invading army would have.

Long winded discussions aside, but the right to own a gun isn't unfettered. Nice try.
From ATF form 4473:
Are you under indictment in any court for a felony,
Are you a fugitive from justice,
Are you a user of, or addicted to a controlled substance,
Have you ever been ajudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution,
Do you have a Dishonorable Discharge,
Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harrassing, stlking, etc,
Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of family violence,
are illegally or unlawfully in the US,
Answering yes to ANY of these prevents you from purchasing a firearm.

Not to mention any additional requirements of state or local laws.

From ATF form 4473

This form is then run through the national data base(ATF and FBI), and in Colorado, through the CBI data base. And the form states that misrepresentaion on the form is perjury and is pusnishable by fines and incarceration.

And in talking to the folks at Cabellas, around 10% are denied.

Totally wrong about the militia. Since some of you don't understand the 2nd Amendment maybe this will help you out.

YouTube link

The topic at hand;

Congrats on the CCW! I've had mine since we passed CC here, but I OC'ed before that.

The primary has changed several times over the years. I started with a SigPro in 9mm, then a Colt Lightweight Commander in .45ACP, a CZ P07 in 9mm, and now I mostly carry a S&W M&P 2.0 in 9mm or a Grand Power P1D in 9mm.

I've become a big fan of Czech, Slovakian, and Slovenian pistols recently, with the successes of CZ, Grand Power, and Arex.

It has been my experience that…

If you were raised to use firearms for hunting, target practice, etc, you understood the dangers.

If you were not, they are the Devils creation and no amount of discussion will change your mind.

What I am afraid of is vehicles. You can do a lot more damage with them and get away with it. Time to ban them I say!

WOW! The CZ 9mm is a really good gun, I wish I could use one for work.

@CorroPredo: Yeah, anytime I purchase a weapon and have to fill that out, I think of those questions as "The IQ Test".

I'm pretty sure if I put up a picture of any of my safes, some here might have a stroke!

I have been consistently impressed by CZ. I don't have anything too fancy in that regard, but I really love my 75-SA or my P01.

I'm sure you will appreciate that everyone outside the USA reading the OP post will be thinking

I also don't like the idea that I can just turn off this thread if I don't like it. It's as if I should just ignore the whole issue rather than questioning it.

Nothing really to fear from the CC folks. These are the law abiding people.

Located in Alabama, today I had lunch at a local restaurant. A patron came in after me and sat in the back with his back against the wall and his wife and child facing him.
He clearly had a pistol on his hip.
Made lunch more uncomfortable rather than feeling secure.

To Irish Marine

No, no, no, sir you misunderstand, I am staunchly pro-gun, been a gun owner since I was 12 and had taken a gun safety course. A couple years ago I felt a need to refresh my training and got my CCA. I was just repeating a post by another,(AHEM!) member to emphasis a point.

I liked your comment and a comment by TGerrittsen so I copied and attached them to my post, I just wanted to make sure you and M. Gerrittsen got the appropriate credit.

@Rudy Nelson-- I expect that the individual you observed was carrying his sidearm in compliance with local laws; the seating arrangement he chose probably gave him a good view of the restaurant entrance, which could save critical moments if he had to respond to any mentally disturbed attacker (if I were to judge from the nightly news reports, there are a LOT of those about now) entering the premises. Personally, I'd feel a little more secure since it appears to me that the person you described had adopted a reasoned approach to firearms carry-- i.e., not a yahoo.

+1 JMcCarroll …

These are the law abiding people.

I am …

Personally, I'd feel a little more secure since it appears to me that the person you described had adopted a reasoned approach to firearms carry-- i.e., not a yahoo.

I agree …

Wow! Totally interesting.

We're not allowed any guns at all over this side of the pond.

They've even stopped us very recently from controllingcriminal-damage-causing flying vermin (crows, magpies, etc).

I find the whole concealed carry thing fascinating and it is interesting to read the arguments.

Re Wargaming. I'm not sure I'd be completely comfortable with an opponent equipped with a concealed weapon – especially if they were rolling bad dice. Of course if my side had better firepower then it'd be alright.

@Stoppage-- What's the situation with non-firearms? Years ago (many years!) pellet rifles powered by compressed air or CO2 were used by the local Coast Guard lighthouse keeper to prevent seabirds from nesting in or damaging the light.

Rudy Nelson,

This is why you should not worry too much when you see a person with open carry setting near you in a restaurant. I ate at the restaurant where this incident occurred two days before the shooting described: link

afaik all wild birds are protected (unless causing criminal damage = vermin)

if you want to shoot seabirds then don't get caught (perhaps catapult + ice-cubes?)

"seems pretty clear to me. The people's right to bear arms is part of being a well regulated militia. So I assume all those with guns have militia service numbers, standard operating procedures and a chain of command appropriate to a well regulated militia?"

No one thought this way when the Constitution was passed. It wasn't until the early 20th century that this argument was first raised, and quickly shot down. 'The militia' when the Constitution was written meant every male between 16 and 60 whether they were formally enrolled in a unit or not.

In Federalist 46 Madison wrote; "Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

and, when speaking of the possibility of the federal government attempting to use force against the states: "This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

"All forms of gun problems have gone up, injuries caused by improper handling, accidental shootings, relative on relative attacks, crime etc are all up due to guns being more commonly available."

Simply not true. Violent crime has been on a downward slope for 30 years and accidental shootings are regulary at record lows.

Very true … But of course people still hit someone else with 2x4 wooden board, lead pipe, a blunt object, etc. Or even use a knife.

Not to mention some run people over with cars/trucks. Albeit some accidently … some on purpose. Seems like we have a hard time controlling all those ways to die too?

There are tons more incidents of people being beaten, stabbed and killed by cars then guns. In the 18 years of law enforcement there have been really a few deaths related to guns and a civilian but a lot more of bad guy killing other bad guy.

"Wow! Totally interesting.

We're not allowed any guns at all over this side of the pond."

Really? is that a fact? So that would explain why there are 1.8 million licensed fireams and shotguns in the UK then.

"They've even stopped us very recently from controllingcriminal-damage-causing flying vermin (crows, magpies, etc)."

Hardly. You need a bird pest control license and then you can gun down as many pigeons and crows as you want, using the guns we apparently aren't allowed to own.

Shotguns are pretty easy to get licensed in the UK, and shooting is still popular. As long as you have a valid reason there is no difficulty.
No idea how this answer relates to wargaming, but I'll take the risk of being dawghoused for it!

Colbourne66,

You are quite correct that the wording of the Second Amendment does refer to a "well regulated militia" and, at times, the Supreme Court has indeed limited the categories of protected weapons to those with a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." (United States v. Miller (1939)). The Court has, however, more recently, held that the Amendement protects an individual's right to keep a gun for self defence (United States v. Heller (2008)) and that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare." (Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016)) It has also held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments. (McDonald v. Chicago (2010)) However much this should, but apparently doesn't, upset the "strict constructionists" it remains the law of the United States that a "well regulated militia" is not a requirement in gun ownership.

One can only hope that those who rely on these decisions show equal respect to other, in some instances rather older, decisions under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Recent legislative developments across a number of states unfortunately suggest otherwise.

That said, I have no more idea than NickB or Montgomery what this has to do with wargaming and my response – like all the others – is entirely political. I also recognise that, at least according to the FAQ, this "is not the place to discuss any wargamer's political beliefs or affiliations" presumably including my own and so will take my place in the Dawghouse with all the others.

Cheers.

Martin is correct.

We have a large workshop-type building at work that pigeons have decided is a lovely place to live. Every few weeks a pest control company send someone round with a gun to attempt to eliminate a few more.

I think where Britain differs from the USA is that guns are largely viewed as 'tools of the trade'. If your line of work doesn't require a gun, then you don't need one!

The confusion in the Second Amendment arrises from that little comma between a "well regulated militia" and "the people". You can't apply 21st century grammar rules to a document written in the 18th century. The original purpose of the comma was to seperate the two because the framers considered them as two distict emtities, not one and the same.

Amusingly, I picked up a cook book a few years ago titled 'Girl Hunter.' It consisted of chapters dealing with a particular hunt followed by recipes for the game taken in that hunt.

One of her school chums had relatives in England and invited her to their estate and attend a 'shoot.' The author noted that the gun room on the estate could have outfitted a small army with rifles and shotguns. Apparently the upper classes are still quite well armed.

I think where Britain differs from the USA is that guns are largely viewed as 'tools of the trade'. If your line of work doesn't require a gun, then you don't need one!

I'm not quite sure I am reading this right.

If you are saying in America guns are assumed to be tools of the trade, that does not match my personal experience (growing up in farm country) nor my professional work in the regulation and management of firearms in the US.

Even in law enforcement and the military, where people might think being armed is de rigueur, there are significant regulations about who can carry a firearm and under what conditions.

Most employment contracts contain a clause and most employers have policy that prohibits employees from carrying their personal firearms in a work environment. When you are on the clock, you are not acting as a private citizen, but as an agent of your employer. (That doesn't mean you abdicate all citizen rights, just that your employer has both rights and responsibilities for the regulation of behaviour in the workplace.)

If you use a firearm as a tool of your work, it is an exception case (and probably documented in writing) for you to use a personal firearm rather than an employer issued one.

I have never actually seen animal control workers with firearms in the US. I know some that serviced facilities where I managed such things did have them. But I've never seen them used or carried. I have seen tranquilizer rifles pulled out as back up for animal control workers trying to capture certain threat animals.

I am also not sure that shooting a few birds from a flock is a viable long-term (more than a day or two) solution. Maybe someone with work experience in this can explain. Again, I've never seen guns in action against pest birds, so I've never had occasion to discuss it with the appropriate professionals.

I'm not quite sure I am reading this right.

You're not ,-)

No, I meant that guns are regarded as tools of the trade in Britain.

Yes, there are some people for whom shooting is a hobby. But it is relatively small, not well publicised, and you have to have the appropriate licence and, I believe, be a member of a recognised gun club?

If you were to ask the average person about guns in Britain they will probably just go "oh yeah, farmers…". We know farmers use guns on their farms, but not what they use them for. But then, the general public have absolutely no clue about anything that farmers actually do beyond the fact that they make food…

Oh, and about your doubts about the viability of shooting pigeons….

I think you are correct. We still have pigeons flapping about the roof girders and the pest control people still have to keep returning. Nice little earner for them though, isn't it…

I have never actually seen animal control workers with firearms in the US.

I have seen several counties where Animal Control Officers (ACO's) are Law Enforcement Officers (LEO's) with full powers of Arrest & Detention. The ACOs wear a duty belt equivalent to other LEOs, perhaps with an extra bite stick or a spare leash. This may have more to do with interacting with animal's owners than with animals.

I believe that I am getting off topic.

guns are regarded as tools of the trade in Britain.

OK, got it. So I still stand with my description of guns as "tools of the trade" in the US. In addition to what I said above,

there are some people for whom shooting is a hobby. But it is relatively small, not well publicised, and you have to have the appropriate licence and, I believe,

This is the same as in the US. Neither the US or UK require being a member of a club to hobby shoot. In both places. you have to go to a range or be in a sufficiently open (i.e., rural) area (per local laws). Some ranges require club membership. Some don't.

Fewer than a quarter of Americans own guns. (Approximately one gun per American is no more an estimate of gun ownership in the US than the number of 28mm miniatures in the US is an estimate of the number of 28mm wargames.) That number is deceptively high. About a third of gun owners who have a home invasion robbery haven't touched their gun since a month or so after purchase (often years). The interpretation of that is they bought a gun "for protection" (tool of the trade), possibly after being subject to some other crime, but really weren't committed to using the gun. Again, tool for a specific purpose.

You can't just apply that number as if it were a random sample (because it isn't) to the total number of gun owners. Also the sample is an undercount, since if they own a gun, have a break in and can immediately find it, this wouldn't get reported. Still, it is an indicator.

Also, the number is deceptive because in a family, only one member would have to register the gun. So there is some underreporting in the ownership number too.

One of the better indicators is that there is roughly one shooting range in the US per 200,000 people.

a Colt Lightweight Commander in .45ACP

I still pack that … when needed …